{"id":3920,"date":"2005-06-27T17:52:38","date_gmt":"2005-06-27T21:52:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2005\/06\/27\/noodling-lawfully\/"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:57:37","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:57:37","slug":"noodling-lawfully","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2005\/06\/27\/noodling-lawfully\/","title":{"rendered":"noodling lawfully"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

\n


\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n
10 PM bonus: from our Comment<\/A> Section<\/EM>:<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n
record heat <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the ice cream man <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
adds a gallon to the radiator<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV>
\n
                        Ed Markowski<\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/A>  <\/DIV><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
You don’t need me to provide you with legal commentary on today’s important<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Supreme Court opinions.  There’s plenty at <\/FONT>SCOTUSblog<\/FONT><\/A>, of course, including <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Ten Commandments discussion<\/FONT><\/A> and <\/FONT>Grokster discussion<\/FONT><\/A> by weblog heavyweights.<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
“Commandments”  I do want to agree with Ann Althouse’s assessment:  the outcomes in the <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
two Ten Commandments cases make sense — as a matter of logic and of legal judgment. <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Like Justice Breyer (my Antitrust professor 30 years ago), I believe that judges very <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
often need to “judge” in constitutional law cases — they’re not merely answering True\/<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
False questions (with brightline rules); they need to reason and explain with essays and <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
even footnotes.<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
Prof. Althouse is also correct <\/FONT>in noting<\/FONT><\/A> that the results in these two cases are not really <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
all that important. (Similarly, I pointed out recently that icons are not <\/EM>what makes <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
religion important in our lives or our nation’s history.)   Ann asks for calm and tolerance:<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
Everyone needs to learn to get along, and those who want to purify    <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
things too much don’t impress me. Sure, they’ll be put out if the government <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
wins in these cases. I don’t think people who take great offense easily should <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
be driving the outcomes…. I think most atheists … and many religious people … <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
accept and even enjoy seeing evidence of other religions around them. It’s part <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
of art and history and culture — part of the beauty of the world that we live in <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
(either by the grace of God or by pure, weird chance).”   (via <\/FONT>SCOTUSblog<\/FONT><\/A>)<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
 <\/FONT>Eugene Volokh reposts<\/FONT><\/A> a piece discussing how many of the Ten Commandments   \"CarlinPorkChops\" <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
are legally enforceable under modern American law.  Only three, with lots of<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
exceptions and ironies (do you know which ones?).  Prof. V asks “can you imagine <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
a law prohibiting coveting?”  In When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops?<\/I><\/A>, while <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
winnowing down the Ten Commandments to two (be honest and be loyal), George <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Carlin notes (at 17): “THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR’S GOODS. This <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
one is just plain stupid. Coveting your neighbor’s goods is what keeps the economy <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
going.”<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n